Uttarakhand High Court
Vineet Kumar Jain vs Smt. Archana Garg on 14 December, 2018
Author: Sudhanshu Dhulia
Bench: Sudhanshu Dhulia, Narayan Singh Dhanik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
First Appeal No.134 of 2013
Vineet Kumar Jain ....Appellant
Versus
Smt. Archana Garg ....Respondent
Present:-Mr. I.P. Kohli, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate for the respondent.
Coram: Hon'ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
Hon'ble Narayan Singh Dhanik, J.
Hon'ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
This is an appeal arising out of a suit for dissolution of marriage filed by the appellant/husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
2. As far as suit for dissolution of marriage was concerned, the relief was not granted, but instead the court has decreed the suit of the appellant/husband under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 i.e. for judicial separation. The appellant/husband has challenged that decree on the ground that in view of the cruelty at the hands of the respondent/wife, which has been alleged to be proved, the decree ought to have been granted under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 instead of Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The wife/respondent has challenged the decree in First Appeal No.122 of 2013.
3. The marriage of the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 12.12.1993 as per Hindu 2 rites and ceremonies. Out of the wedlock, they have a boy child and a girl child. The suit for dissolution of marriage was filed by the appellant in the year 2013. During the pendency of the suit, an application was moved by the appellant/husband, in which an interim order was passed and the custody of the children was given to the appellant/husband. Thereafter on an application moved by the respondent/wife under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 at the time when the suit was decreed, the custody of the children was handed over to the respondent/wife. The boy is now about 18 years of age and the girl is also a major and presently completed her B.Tech.
4. Meanwhile, the boy is also present before this Court. This Court has been informed that the boy is an 'autistic' child and hence needs special care. He needs a school where he can be properly taken care of. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the respondent/wife presently does not have the finances to give any kind of special care to her son.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant/husband submits that the appellant is ready to bear the expenses of the boy child in case he is put to any special school.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent/wife has also apprised this Court that this is also one of the findings of a Coordinate Bench of this Court, which has come in the order dated 09.10.2018, which reads as under:-
"Mr. I.P. Kohli, Advocate for the appellant.3
Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate for the respondent.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Earlier, this Court requested Mr. T.A. Khan, Senior Advocate & Mrs. Neetu Singh, Advocate to mediate in the matter.
After mediation, Mrs. Neetu Singh, Advocate informed this Court that the only problem, which the appellant as well as respondent are facing, is the health problem of their son, who is about 18 years of age. It is informed by Mrs. Neetu Singh that their son is mentally infirm and since he is 18 years of age, it is not possible for the respondent to take care of him, as he is unable to perform his daily routine activities and it is becoming difficult for her to control her son. She further submitted that the appellant is working in the O.N.G.C. and he has to go out of station invariably. She also submitted that the parties agreed that their son be sent to Rehabilitation Centre/Special School for such type of patients. She also submitted that Mr. Vineet Kumar Jain (appellant) is ready to bear the expenses which are going to be incurred on the same.
Learned counsel for the parties requested that matter may be listed after Deepawali vacations.
List this matter on 15.11.2018."
7. The appellant before this Court is the husband who is presently working as a Deputy General Manager in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (in short "ONGC"), and is presently earning a gross salary of Rs.3,87,804/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eighty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Four Only) per month, out of which, Rs.1,22,483/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Two Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Three Only) is being deducted and the net pay as admitted by the appellant/husband is Rs.2,65,321/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Sixty Five Thousand Three Hundred Twenty One Only). The appellant admittedly a very senior officer in ONGC. The salary 4 statement of appellant/husband has been produced before this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant/husband, which is made a part of record.
8. Both the parties have apprised this Court that they shall meanwhile jointly move an application before the school authorities. The schools they have identified are Vasant Valley School at Delhi and Well Being School, at Ghaziabad where such special care can be given to the boy child. Both the parents shall visit these two schools, or any other school which is agreeable to them, and get their son admitted in the school, of which entire expenses shall be borne by the appellant/husband. Let this Court be informed by the next date of listing, which is fixed for 07.01.2019.
9. List this case on 07.01.2019 in the daily cause list along with other connected matters.
10. Let a certified copy of this order be given today itself on payment of usual charges.
(Narayan Singh Dhanik, J.) (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 14.12.2018 Ankit/